> “This is a bizarre question. To me, culture is a kind of animal behavior. Of course I don’t deny the existence of animal behavior. Do you?!”
What I meant is that cultural dialectic seems to be partially separate from genetic development. Do you think Mussolini to have been predestined to have begun as a socialist, and then to have changed his views to fascism? (In a philosophical sense, you might, but in Darwinian, too?) Face it – memes are more flexible than genes, have a life of their own, may harm or bolster their host genes.
> “Oh, I see. You are trying to make a distinction between “natural” selection and “artificial” selection, by “culture”, I suppose.”
No, those paragraphs are unconnected.
> ” But what you’re not understanding is that in the final analysis, everything is fully Darwinian, and everything exists in nature.”
Yes. But you had been talking about how in a primitive society, everybody swims or sinks “based on his merits” – I contested the word “merits”. A merit in a given time and system might prove out to be fatal in the long run. Breeding a race of merchants might cause prosperity for 400 years, and demise in the 401st.
I contend that Man has to use his faculty of reason to model the future and thus to direct the stream of culture. The Ministry of Propaganda is the triumph of genes over memes, and a sign of Man’s superiority over all other lifeforms.
(This is why I respect Juche Korea more than the Taliban – the Taliban is bound by a creed they are unable to change, they are praying to RNGesus that it will work out, unable to reason with the will of Allah.)
> “Conceiving of man as being outside of nature is a Christian mistake fostered by Biblical creation myths. The “free will” idea, to which you also subscribe, is Biblical too. You’re more Christian than you realize, Adûnâi!”
Disagree. Anti-Christian is everything that supports the survival of the people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Can you explain why you consider a Man-centred creed Christian? Putting Man on the pedestal seems to me quite a natural thing to do for a healthy collective. I never understood this about National Socialism.
It does not mean denying that Man exists (???). It does not mean that Man is an individual (???). It does not mean that Man is mankind (???). – All 3 ideas are preposterous Christian poisons, and have nothing to do with Man-centredness.
(1. Man is an illusion, Man is a soul. 2. Man’s well-being is the happiness of the individual. 3. Man’s well-being is the continued survival of every last Negro child.)
> “Whether they have “a life of their own” or not is the question.”
The memes of Christianity and Islam have clearly spread out across the world, replicating in distinct populations.
> ” What makes a meme attractive, persistent, and useful? Without an underlying genetic basis, nothing.”
I don’t get it. Doesn’t Man’s mind have the feature of being susceptible to memes? Man can form ideas, those ideas survive in turn. There are certain underlying principles for reason such as the laws of logic.
> ” Christianity itself has in some ways supported the survival of “the people” (which ones?) for thousands of years. So by this measure, Christianity is anti-Christian!”
Modern Christianity is the closest to the Bible, the purest kind. The pre-Darwinian Christianity is more Darwinian than the post-Darwinian is. Not to say that the former did not beget the latter – the existence (or lack thereof) of Latin America is proof of it, as Chechar will kindly remind you.
> “Food also supports survival, so that’s anti-Christian too! Even the air, etc.”
Yes, yes! Christianity is an idealist poison that abhors existence, rejects life, holds the material world in contempt.
> “The pagan gods were Nature gods.”
Some pagan gods made people burn their own blood children alive. Is it natural? (Carthage lost a 1v1, btw.)
> “Christianity introduced the belief that man is a special creation of God, made in God’s image, the only creature with a “soul”.”
Are you not turning pre-Christians into hippies unjustly? They had no problem burning forests, and torturing animals in circuses. Modern Christians hold Man in contempt, and wish we returned to the state of lifeless rock. It is the modern Christians who view everything as equally worthless, biological or otherwise – apparently, only the grace of atheist Jesus can save the sinners from the sin of existing.
Again, if the belief in human superiority aided Man in survival, it is anti-Christian. Or made “Christian” by the force of necessity and compromise with reality.
I also don’t get how you can talk about this Christian culture’s superseding antiquity if you do not believe in memes and are a biological determinist. Shouldn’t you instead say that the behaviour of certain European populations changed?
On second thought, I do not get how believing in “Nature gods” is natural either. Not because crows are atheist [source?], but because a truly Natural existence is that of a tumour – and tumours typically behave as if they’re god’s chosen. They grow, and they certainly put themselves on a pedestal. Tumour über alles!
> “What’s your definition of Man, and why put him on a pedestal?”
Man is race. A separate population. Racism is the purest anti-Christianity as it abhors both universalism and individualism.
> “Apparently it has nothing necessarily to do with the white race, or you wouldn’t be so enamored of N. Korea.”
Kimjongilia is to me what Sparta/Hitleria are to Chechar. A great example. Obviously, in practical terms, the Aryan race is most likely going extinct, and the DPRK is going to the stars. This stirs both green envy and cucked admiration in me.
(If you want to see an Aryan racist that uses extreme racism as a vehicle for his non-racist ideology, that is Chechar of the Four Words, not me. Quacks never change.)
See you in 24+ hours, for Ron Unz is estranging us.